Frogs for Snakes

At the Boulder City Council’s recent goal-setting retreat, council member Suzy Ageton, one of the most consistently thoughtful people we have seen on council in recent years, expressed a wish for executive sessions, wherein the whole council could meet for deliberations outside the public view. In a follow-up editorial, the Daily Camera pointed out that the charter change that would be required for executive sessions was rejected by Boulder voters in 2008 — 14 months ago.

Last year, as a study session to consider the role of Boards and Commissions and the way members are selected,  one council member suggested that Boulder again consider allowing non-citizens to serve on boards. When reminded that the voters had rejected that idea, she responded “Yes, but not by much.”

The council member who reminded her that the electorate had decided against the idea made a similar statement, or at least a similar logical jump, a few years ago. After a council pay raise had been rejected by voters in consecutive elections, he was attempting to justify an expenditure for child-care for council members, arguing that even though voters rejected council pay raises, the vote was close and proponents hadn’t even campaigned. The logic of that argument, I thought at the time, went something like this: “The voters expressed a narrow preference for not increasing our pay. But we didn’t campaign, and if we had campaigned they would have expressed a preference in favor of a pay raise, so obviously they would like us to have increased compensation.”

If that reminds you of Vizzini in the Princess Bride saying “So I cannot possibly choose the wine in front of me,” good.

A guy shouldn’t imagine a trend from three data points, especially if you’re relying on memory for two of them, but I’m pretty seriously bothered by this casual observation that elected government officials seem to consider an election not so much a decision-making process, but rather a preference-expression process, like a poll or a focus group, making recommendations rather than decisions, recommendations that would, of course, be trumped by the superior knowledge of the political elite.

This apparent understanding is a mark of what I have come to believe is an increasing disdain of our municipal government for the citizens, which is precisely mirrored in the increasing disdain the citizens have for the government.

The New York Times is suggesting that local TV and radio stations will get a huge boost in ad revenue following the Surpreme Court’s striking down federal regulations on campaign spending by corporations.

While you may not be able to quite buy an election, you can come pretty close, and the mosteffective technique you can buy is “attack ads”– aggressively negative advertising of a candidates failings, or shortcomings.

Attack ads breed voter cynicism, reduce voter turnout, and contribute to the kind of political polarization that has rendered California ungovernable and given us the town-hall meeting hatred of 2009.

So a likely by-product of the Supreme Court action (it’s more than a decision, seems to me) that we can add to decreasing relevance of political parties and small donors is increasing polrization and the hatred it spawns. So we’re looking forward to a fun election season.

Yesterday, at the beginning of their annual goal-setting retreat, some members of Boulder City Council publically questioned the wisdom of considering an emergency ordinance that would allow camping in public places in Boulder.

The action was taken in responce to intense lobbying by 60 or so members of the “homeless community”[1], many telling heart-wrenching stories, no doubt true, of their travails. The mayor admitted to feeling “boxed-in”, others, according to the Daily Camera, pointing out that they should avoid rash decisions based on emotions but should, rather, think policy decisions through [my words] before acting.

No one wants to appear heartless, especially when the cameras are on, and collectively we have failed our least privileged in this country, but allowing camping in public parks[2] would have effectively denied their use by the rest of the population which seems to violate most notions of justice.

Of course, now council might seem to be willing to tell people whatever they want to hear to get them off their back only to reneg later (“tell us yes but do us no”  in one of my father’s favorite phrases), making them just like every other group of politicians in the world, so it will be interesting to see how they handle not THIS issue so much as similar situations in the future.

Anyway, they deserve some credit for re-thinking the situation, though I’m pretty sure some private communications from constituents helped motivate that.

[1] A ridiculous term, I think. “Community” denotes a social coherence that just isn’t there–this was lobbying by members of an interest group, but the syntax is awkward: “…members of the homeless interest group…” just doesn’t ring.

[2] That’s assumed by many to be the outcome of an ordinance that halts issuing tickets for camping in public places.

In a 5-4 decision slong what would be party lines if we acknowledged the de facto ones, the U.S. Supreme Court found most current federal laws limiting campaign contributions by business in violation of the first ammendment and therefore, unconstitutional. The decision makes sense at all only if we remember that by U.S. law, a corporation is treated as a person on matters of first ammendment rights.

Lobbyists, business and trade unions are no free–mostly, a few provisions remain–to spend as much as they want whenever they want to influence federal elections, and you can bet your boots they’ll spend a lot to see to it that candidates partial to the interests of business, even, maybe especially, when the interests of large, wealthy corporations are at odds with the interests of the citizens.

The decision overruled two earlier Supreme Court decisions and ignores 100 years of lawmaker’s attempts to limit the influence of Big Money on federal elections and will change how elections are conducted. The Washington Post has a good analysis of potential consequences here.

The Taliban in Afghanistan is recasting its image as a national insurgency, distancing itself from al-Qaeda and international terrorism in general and modulating its use of domestic terror as a tactic. A December code-of-conduct directive from Taliban spiritual leader Muhammad Omar included on suicide bombings against civilians, burning down schools, or cutting off ears, lips and tongues, thereby promising a kinder, gentler, terrorism [New York Times].

Obviously, the changes come in response to increased U.S and ISAF activity and the nascent success of a revised counterinsurgency doctrine. Sadly, Taliban adaptations are themselves proving successful, suggesting many more troops and a central government that has earned the trust of its people will be needed if something like an
Afghan state will emerge from this conflict.